Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 145 references

Co-evolution of social reward and punishment under institutional interventions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Under institutional punishment, only punishing defectors works; under institutional reward, institutions should target the peer enforcers, because sanctioning punishers or rewarders destroys cooperation and welfare.

desk verdict A useful four-strategy extension with plausible design principles, but the welfare rankings are not well-defined as written because of per-capita vs per-interaction cost accounting, plus internal contradictions in the stability text. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01183 v1 pith:WXGBUNLS submitted 2026-08-02 cs.AI cs.GTcs.MAmath.DSnlin.AO

Van An Nguyen , Vuong Khang Huynh , Hoai Thuong Nguyen , Duc Tin Duong , An Nguyen Gia , Tat Kien Nguyen , Huu Loi Bui , My Nguyen Tra
show 9 more authors
Ho Nam Duong Ba Thanh Phan Thanh Vo Dinh Anh Trung Hoang Adeela Bashir Zhao Song Manh Hong Duong Le Hong Trang The Anh Han
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.GTcs.MAmath.DSnlin.AO MSC 91A2291A80
keywords evolutionofcooperationsocialdilemmapeerpunishmentrewardinstitutionalincentiveswelfarereplicatordynamicsagent-basedsimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks which institutional interventions work when individuals can already reward and punish each other in a Prisoner's Dilemma with four strategies: unconditional cooperators, defectors, social punishers, and social rewarders. An external institution may reward or punish any subset of these four types, and the paper measures success by both cooperation level and social welfare, defined as aggregate payoff minus the institution's per-capita cost. Using replicator dynamics for infinite well-mixed populations and agent-based simulations on a square lattice, it finds a sharp asymmetry: institutional reward works best when aimed at the peer-incentive strategies (especially social rewarders), while subsidizing plain cooperators has little effect; institutional punishment works only when aimed at defectors, and punishing peer enforcers destroys cooperation and welfare. The paper concludes that institutions should never sanction social punishers or rewarders, should reward rewarders, and should spend punishment budget on defectors. Maximizing cooperation alone is a misleading objective because punishment-heavy regimes can yield low welfare.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a 4x4 payoff matrix in which social punishers reduce a defector's payoff by $\delta_P$ at personal cost $\epsilon_P$ and social rewarders increase a cooperator's payoff by $\delta_R$ at cost $\epsilon_R$, with the institution applying a fixed additive payoff shift $\theta_i$ to every payoff of each targeted strategy $i$ (positive reward, negative punishment) at cost $|\theta_i|$ per targeted individual. Welfare is aggregate population payoff minus that institutional cost, and the evolutionary dynamics are the replicator equations in both well-mixed and lattice populations, with the lattice using a Fermi imitation rule. A structural feature drives the analysis: with institutional shifts, the interior equilibrium exists only under a solvability condition $\alpha/\epsilon_P + \beta/\epsilon_R = 1$ relating the reward shifts to the peer costs, and when it exists it is a one-parameter line segment rather than an isolated point, meaning the institution chooses where on that line the population coexists. The mechanism behind the main result is that SP and SR are themselves cooperators, so punishing them both removes cooperative strategies and dismantles the peer-enforcement channel, whereas punishing D directly makes cooperation viable without needing peer enforcement.

What would settle it

In a laboratory or agent-based replication, impose an institution that fines defectors and also fines peer punishers at the same fixed per-capita budget; the model predicts cooperation and welfare fall below the no-institution baseline whenever peer punishers are targeted. If a well-powered replication instead finds cooperation maintained or welfare higher, the claim that sanctioning enforcers is always harmful would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a four-strategy Prisoner's Dilemma where social punishers and social rewarders coexist with unconditional cooperators and defectors, the effect of an institutional intervention depends almost entirely on which subset of strategies it targets. When the institution rewards, the only policies that substantially raise both cooperation and social welfare are those that include the peer-incentive strategies SP and/or SR, with {SP, SR} performing best; rewarding C alone produces cooperation levels indistinguishable from the no-institution baseline and adding C to a target set weakens the policy. When the institution punishes, the ranking reverses: punishing D alone is the only consistently effective policy, while punishing SP or SR dismantles the decentralized enforcement that keeps defection in check and drives cooperation below the baseline. Punishing enforcers is not merely ineffective but destructive. Throughout, defectors persist in essentially all parameter regions, and the institution mainly reshapes which cooperative and enforcer types coexist with defection and at what welfare level; peer punishment is the strongest promoter of cooperation, while peer reward is the better guardian of social welfare.

Load-bearing premise

The policy rankings assume an institution can shift each targeted strategy's payoff by a fixed per-person amount $\theta_i$, costs $|\theta_i|$ per targeted individual, and that social welfare equals aggregate payoff minus that per-capita cost; if enforcement costs are convex, charged per interaction, or change how incentives combine with peer effects, the ranking of policies could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under institutional punishment, the budget should be spent on D only: any policy that also targets SP or SR lowers both cooperation and welfare, and targeting enforcers without D approaches uniform defection.
  • Under institutional reward, the effective targets are SP and SR, not C: {SP, SR} yields the highest cooperation and welfare, and adding C to a reward set reduces the policy's effect.
  • Evaluating an institution by cooperation alone is misleading: the same intervention that maximizes cooperation can be welfare-negative, and peer reward outperforms peer punishment on welfare while trailing it on cooperation.
  • In structured populations the same policy can produce different coexistence outcomes than in well-mixed populations, so the design rules depend on the interaction network.
  • Defectors persist in essentially every scenario; institutions should think of their role as shaping which cooperative and enforcing strategies coexist with defection.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The interior equilibrium is a line segment, so an institution's budget can be viewed as selecting a point on a coexistence continuum rather than forcing a single winning strategy; this suggests fine-tuned policies could park a society near a welfare-optimal mix without eliminating defection.
  • The result that adding unconditional cooperators to a reward target weakens the policy implies that 'cooperator' is not a homogeneous category for policy design; institutions should distinguish plain cooperators from peer enforcers.
  • Because punishing SR is roughly twice as harmful to welfare as punishing SP, a testable design rule extends beyond the paper: among enforcer types, rewarders deserve stronger institutional protection than punishers since they generate positive-sum spillovers.
  • A natural experimental test follows from the model: a lab public-goods game with an external fine on vigilantism should reproduce the collapse in cooperation, and an explicit external subsidy of peer rewarders should raise welfare more than an equal subsidy of ordinary cooperators.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a four-strategy Prisoner's Dilemma in which unconditional cooperators (C), defectors (D), social punishers (SP), and social rewarders (SR) coexist, and an external institution can add a fixed payoff shift theta_i to any subset of strategies. The authors derive replicator dynamics and equilibrium conditions for infinite well-mixed populations, and run agent-based simulations on a 100x100 lattice with a Fermi update rule. They report that peer punishment promotes cooperation most strongly while peer reward is better for welfare; that institutional rewards should target SP and SR rather than C; and that institutional punishment should target D only, since punishing SP or SR destroys cooperation and welfare. The paper's central design principles are welfare-based.

Significance. If the welfare rankings were rigorously established, the paper would offer a useful design principle for institutional incentive schemes in social dilemmas, and the four-strategy model is a natural extension of earlier three-strategy analyses. Strengths include analytic equilibrium characterization for the well-mixed case, parameter sweeps over (epsilon,delta) for all target subsets, and specific falsifiable predictions about which strategies institutions should reward or punish. However, the central welfare measure is not fully specified and the analytical section contains internal contradictions, so the significance is conditional on fixing these issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3.3 and 3.6, Eq. (4), Figs. 9 and 14] The welfare measure used for the central policy rankings is never written down, and the implied cost accounting is internally inconsistent. Eq. (4) implements theta_i as a payoff shift added to every entry of row i, so on the L=100 lattice each targeted player receives 4*theta_i per round from its four neighbors. Section 3.6, however, describes a "per capita cost value theta=1.0" and an efficiency coefficient a=1 that appears in no formula. If welfare is aggregate payoff net of a once-per-capita cost |theta_i|, then any reward policy creates 3*theta_i of apparent net value per target per round purely from the interaction-count mismatch; if instead the transfer is meant to be netted out of payoffs, Eq. (4) overstates the payoff shift and every policy becomes a net cost. Either way, the policy rankings in Figs. 9 and 14 are not well-defined as written, and the authors must state the exact welfare function, specify whether theta_i is per interaction or per capita, and re-run or re-derive the comparisons.
  2. [Section 4.1.3 and Figures 3 and 4] The stability statements in Section 4.1.3 and the captions of Figures 3 and 4 are mutually contradictory. Figure 3's caption says "no stable equilibrium exists" while also saying streamlines converge toward C, and the text then calls vertex C unstable. If trajectories converge to C, then C is at least attracting, so calling it unstable is not coherent. Likewise, Figure 4's caption says D is stable except for SP in the (0,0,+,+) and (0,0,+,-) cases, while the text says "The equilibrium at vertex D is consistently stable through all 4 policy regimes." These contradictions concern the core analytical claim about which equilibria are stable and should be resolved with a correct stability classification for each vertex and for the reported interior and edge equilibria.
  3. [Section 4.1.2 and Figure 3 caption] The claimed continuum of equilibria on the C-D edge in Figure 3 is inconsistent with the paper's own edge analysis. Section 4.1.2 gives the C-D edge interior point as y=(R-T-gamma)/B. With the Figure 3 parameters theta_C=1, theta_D=0 (so gamma=-1) and the stated payoff values R=3, T=5, S=0, P=1, one obtains B=-1 and y=1, which is not an interior point of the edge. The edge flow is therefore monotone rather than containing a continuum of equilibria, so the caption's claim that a continuum exists "consistent with the theoretical stability analysis" needs either correction or a detailed derivation.
  4. [Section 4.2.2 and Figure 11] The headline claim that penalising defectors is "the only consistently effective policy" is stronger than the presented evidence. Figure 11 shows that at delta=0.4 and delta=1 the eight punishment policies are indistinguishable and all decay to zero, with separation only at delta=3. The text itself acknowledges that "the policy ranking of Figure 10 emerges only once peer incentives are strong enough to matter." This parameter dependence should be stated prominently, and the abstract and discussion should not present the ranking as uniform over the (epsilon,delta) regimes examined.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.1] The text refers to "Figure 1" when reporting stationary cooperation levels, but the relevant figure appears to be Figure 5; several other cross-references need checking.
  2. [Section 3.6] The efficiency coefficient a=1 is introduced but never appears in any formula; either define how a enters the welfare calculation or remove it.
  3. [Section 4.2.2, around Figure 12] The sentence stating that the choice of target set is inert in the delta-close-to-epsilon regime appears twice in consecutive paragraphs; delete the duplicate.
  4. [Figures 6 and 11] The paper should state explicitly whether "cooperation level" counts SP and SR as cooperative strategies, since the figures plot combined C+SP+SR frequency while the discussion sometimes contrasts SP/SR with plain C.
  5. [Throughout] There are minor language errors, for example "may not be captures" in Section 1 and "subsiding SP" in Section 4.1.3 (likely "subsidising"); a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Welfare-improvement results are built into the cost accounting: Eq. (4) credits each targeted lattice player with 4θ in payoff while Section 3.6 charges only θ once per capita.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3, Eqs. (3)–(4); Section 3.6; welfare claims in Fig. 9 and Discussion]
    "In general, the institution pays |θ i|per targeted individual to shift strategyi’s payoff byθ i ... Pθ =P+θ1 ⊟ ... We use efficiency coefficient a= 1 and per capita cost valueθ= 1.0 for all experiments unless further description."

    Eq. (4) adds θ_i to every entry of row i of the payoff matrix, so on the L=100 von Neumann lattice a targeted agent receives θ_i in each of its four interactions, i.e. 4θ_i of extra payoff per round. Section 3.6, however, charges the institution only a single per-capita cost θ=1.0. Therefore, with welfare defined as aggregate payoff net of institutional cost, each rewarded agent contributes +4θ_i to aggregate payoff and only −|θ_i| to cost, a guaranteed net +3θ_i per target even if no strategy changes. The paper's conclusion that rewarding SP/SR 'substantially improves both cooperation and welfare' is thus, on the welfare side, an arithmetic consequence of the cost accounting rather than an emergent evolutionary result. The welfare rankings in Fig.

full rationale

Apart from the welfare-accounting identity above, the paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The replicator dynamics in Eqs. (11)–(17) and (26)–(29) are derived directly from the payoff matrices, and the equilibrium classification in Section 4.1.2 solves the stated payoff-equality conditions; no parameter is fitted to produce the equilibrium or cooperation results. The lattice simulations fix the institutional incentive at θ=1.0 and the efficiency coefficient at a=1 on a grid of (ε,δ) values, again with no calibration to the conclusions. The self-citations (Han 2016, Bashir et al. 2026, Song et al. 2026, Han et al. 2025/2026, Duong et al. 2026) are used for the standard Fermi update, the three-strategy baseline, and the motivation for a welfare criterion; they are not invoked as the source of the paper's own rankings, so they are not load-bearing circularity. The cooperation-level findings, including the ranking of punishment targets, are genuine simulation outputs and remain independent. The circularity is partial: the headline 'reward improves welfare' claim is forced by the mismatched per-interaction benefit vs per-capita cost accounting, but the cooperation and punishment prescriptions retain independent content. The missing explicit welfare formula and unused coefficient a are correctness and reproducibility concerns, but the circular step is the accounting mismatch exhibited above, which warrants a score of 6 rather than higher because only the welfare half of the central claim reduces by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses standard evolutionary game theory machinery with one new structural ingredient: institutional incentives that can target any subset of four strategies. The key modeling choices are the additive payoff shift representation of institutional incentives and the net-of-cost welfare metric; both are adopted without sensitivity analysis. No new physical or biological entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Payoff matrix values R, T, S, P = 3, 5, 0, 1
    Chosen for the lattice simulations to satisfy the PD ordering T > R > P > S; cooperation levels and welfare values are quantitative functions of these numbers.
  • Institutional per-capita incentive/cost theta = 1.0
    Fixed magnitude for both reward and punishment in all experiments (Section 3.6); no sensitivity analysis of theta is reported, so the policy ranking may be theta-dependent.
  • Fermi update noise K = 0.3
    Standard choice cited from Perc et al. 2017, but fixed; the qualitative results could differ at higher or lower noise.
  • Efficiency coefficient a = 1
    Mentioned in Section 3.6 but never defined or used in an equation; presumably converts institutional cost into welfare loss.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The game is a one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma with payoff ordering T > R > P > S.
    Standard PD definition, Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption In the infinite-population case, evolution is described by replicator dynamics under random matching.
    Section 3.4; this is the standard EGT framework.
  • domain assumption The institution is external, always acts, and is not subject to selection, so its own survival is not modeled.
    Section 3.3: the institution does not participate in the game and is not subject to selection.
  • ad hoc to paper Institutional incentives are implemented as a fixed uniform additive shift theta_i to every payoff row of strategy i, independent of the opponent.
    Equations (3)-(4); this is the authors' modeling choice and determines the welfare accounting.
  • domain assumption The agent-based simulations include no mutation and use equal initial strategy frequencies.
    Section 3.6: without mutation and equal probability initial assignment.
  • ad hoc to paper Social welfare is aggregate population payoff net of institutional cost, with the cost of a unit incentive equal to the incentive magnitude.
    Stated in the abstract and Section 3.6, but the exact formula is never written; the reader must infer the cost accounting.
  • ad hoc to paper When discussing interior equilibria, the solvability condition alpha/epsP + beta/epsR = 1 and 0 < theta_SP - theta_C < epsP are assumed to hold.
    Section 4.1.2: assumed whenever an interior equilibrium is under discussion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Co-evolution of social reward and punishment under institutional interventions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXGBUNLS

@misc{pith2026260801183,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Co-evolution of social reward and punishment under institutional interventions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXGBUNLS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01183}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate how peer and institutional incentives jointly shape the evolution of cooperation, social welfare, and enforcement efficiency in social dilemmas. In a Prisoners Dilemma with four strategies, unconditional cooperators (C), defectors (D), social punishers (SP), and social rewarders (SR), we allow decentralised peer incentives and centralised institutional incentives to act simultaneously, with the institution able to reward or punish any subset of strategies. In infinite well-mixed populations, we analyse the resulting four-strategy replicator dynamics, and in structured populations we use agent-based simulations on square lattices to study spatial effects and network reciprocity. Intervention schemes are evaluated by equilibrium states and evolutionary flow for infinite well-mixed populations, by cooperation levels and social welfare for structured populations, defined as aggregate population payoff net of institutional cost. We find that peer punishment most strongly promotes cooperation, whereas peer reward is more beneficial for social welfare. Institutionally rewarding peer incentive strategies substantially improves both cooperation and welfare, while subsidising unconditional cooperators has little impact. Under institutional punishment, directly penalising defectors is the only consistently effective policy; punishing peer incentive strategies dismantles decentralised incentives, reduces cooperation, and harms social welfare, showing that maximising cooperation does not necessarily optimise overall societal benefit. Our findings provide design principles for institutions seeking to balance cooperation promotion with welfare maximisation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01183 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall illustration of overall approach in this work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the four strategies under pure social (peer) incentives. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase portraits of the four-strategy replicator dynamics on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase portraits of the four-strategy replicator dynamics on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cooperation level when giving incentive on different groups of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cooperation frequency in the population under different institutional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Lattice representation over time under different types of incentive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Coexistence of strategies across the (ϵ, δ) parameter space under each reward policy. Each panel maps the composition of the surviving population (the coexistence of strategies) as a function of the incentive cost ϵ (horizontal) and impact δ (vertical), for the eight i…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Social welfare when giving incentive on different groups of cooperators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cooperation level when giving punishment on different groups of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cooperation frequency in the population under different institutional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Lattice representation over time under different types of punishment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Coexistence of strategies across the (ϵ, δ) parameter space under each punishment policy. Each panel maps the composition of the surviving population (the coexistence of strategies) as a function of the punishment cost ϵ (horizontal) and impact δ (vertical), for the e…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Social welfare when giving punishment on different groups of defector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

145 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics , volume=

    Stochastic dynamics of invasion and fixation , author=. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  2. [2]

    Physics reports , volume=

    Evolutionary games on graphs , author=. Physics reports , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  3. [3]

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , volume=

    Beyond cooperation and cost: Welfare-optimal incentives in structured populations , author=. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  4. [4]

    Network reciprocity turns cheap talk into a force for cooperation , journal =

    Zhao Song and Chen Shen and The Anh Han , keywords =. Network reciprocity turns cheap talk into a force for cooperation , journal =. 2026 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2025.112303 , url =

    work page arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Cooperation versus social welfare , journal =

    The Anh Han and Zhao Song and Theodor Cimpeanu and Manh Hong Duong and Marcus Krellner and Valerio Capraro and Matjaz Perc , keywords =. Cooperation versus social welfare , journal =. 2026 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2025.11.006 , url =

    doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2025.11.006 2026

  6. [6]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.13897564 , url =

    Han, The Anh , title =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.13897564 , url =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.13897564

  7. [7]

    Physics of life reviews , volume=

    Universal scaling for the dilemma strength in evolutionary games , author=. Physics of life reviews , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  8. [8]

    Scientific reports , volume=

    Social efficiency deficit deciphers social dilemmas , author=. Scientific reports , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

Show all 145 references
  1. [9]

    IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering , volume=

    State-dependent optimal incentive allocation protocols for cooperation in public goods games on regular networks , author=. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  2. [10]

    European journal of operational research , volume=

    Inequity averse optimization in operational research , author=. European journal of operational research , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  3. [11]

    Journal of Physics: Complexity , volume=

    Both eyes open: Vigilant Incentives help auditors improve AI safety , author=. Journal of Physics: Complexity , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00078 , year=

    Regulatory markets for AI safety , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00078 , year=

    2001 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Concentrated Power, and the Political Economy of Open AI (August 17, 2023) , year=

    Open (for business): Big tech, concentrated power, and the political economy of open AI , author=. Concentrated Power, and the Political Economy of Open AI (August 17, 2023) , year=

    2023

  6. [14]

    Technology in Society , volume=

    Voluntary safety commitments provide an escape from over-regulation in AI development , author=. Technology in Society , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  7. [15]

    Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    The windfall clause: Distributing the benefits of AI for the common good , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

  8. [16]

    AI & society , volume=

    Dismantling AI capitalism: the commons as an alternative to the power concentration of Big Tech , author=. AI & society , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  9. [17]

    Games and Economic behavior , volume=

    Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games , author=. Games and Economic behavior , volume=. 1994 , publisher=

    1994

  10. [18]

    Royal Society open science , volume=

    Scaling the phase-planes of social dilemma strengths shows game-class changes in the five rules governing the evolution of cooperation , author=. Royal Society open science , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  11. [19]

    Journal of the Royal Society Interface , volume=

    Optimization of institutional incentives for cooperation in structured populations , author=. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  12. [20]

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , volume=

    Social diversity reduces the complexity and cost of fostering fairness , author=. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  13. [21]

    Expert Systems With Applications , volume=

    Coevolutionary dynamics of population and institutional rewards in public goods games , author=. Expert Systems With Applications , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  14. [22]

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , volume=

    Partial intervention promotes cooperation and social welfare in regional public goods game , author=. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  15. [23]

    Applied Mathematics and Computation , volume=

    Evolution of commitment in the spatial public goods game through institutional incentives , author=. Applied Mathematics and Computation , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  16. [24]

    2023 , eprint=

    Optimally combined incentive for cooperation among interacting agents in population games , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  17. [25]

    Dynamic Games and Applications , pages=

    Does spending more always ensure higher cooperation? An analysis of institutional incentives on heterogeneous networks , author=. Dynamic Games and Applications , pages=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  18. [26]

    Physics of Life Reviews , year=

    Reputation and reciprocity , author=. Physics of Life Reviews , year=

  19. [27]

    Applied Mathematics and Computation , volume=

    Effects of interconnections among corruption, institutional punishment, and economic factors on the evolution of cooperation , author=. Applied Mathematics and Computation , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  20. [28]

    Duong, M. H. and Durbac, C. M. and Han, T. A. , title =. J. Math. Biol. , volume=

  21. [29]

    Understanding Emergent Behaviours in Multi-Agent Systems with Evolutionary Game Theory , author =

  22. [30]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , volume =

    Indirect exclusion can promote cooperation in repeated group interactions , author =. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , volume =

  23. [31]

    Journal of the Royal Society Interface , volume=

    Institutional incentives for the evolution of committed cooperation: ensuring participation is as important as enhancing compliance , author=. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  24. [32]

    Adaptive Behavior , volume=

    Evolution of coordination in pairwise and multi-player interactions via prior commitments , author=. Adaptive Behavior , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  25. [33]

    and Zhang, X

    Zhang, M. and Zhang, X. and Qu,C. and Wang, G. and Lu, X. , title =. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , volume =

  26. [34]

    2022 , issn =

    Decentralized incentives for general well-being in networked public goods game , journal =. 2022 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2022.127308 , url =

    2022

  27. [35]

    , title =

    Wang, Shengxian and Chen, Xiaojie and Xiao, Zhilong and Szolnoki, Attila and Vasconcelos, Vítor V. , title =. Journal of The Royal Society Interface , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  28. [36]

    AI Communications , volume=

    Emergent Behaviours in Multi-agent Systems with Evolutionary Game Theory , Author =. AI Communications , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  29. [37]

    Journal of the Royal Society interface , volume=

    Mathematical foundations of moral preferences , author=. Journal of the Royal Society interface , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  30. [38]

    Iscience , volume=

    Combination of institutional incentives for cooperative governance of risky commons , author=. Iscience , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  31. [39]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society A , volume=

    Cost efficiency of institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in finite populations , author=. Proceedings of the Royal Society A , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  32. [40]

    Europhysics Letters , volume =

    Incentive strategies for the evolution of cooperation: Analysis and optimization , author =. Europhysics Letters , volume =

  33. [41]

    Cimpeanu, Theodor and Perret, Cedric and Han, The Anh , journal =

  34. [42]

    Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems , volume =

    Picky losers and carefree winners prevail in collective risk dilemmas with partner selection , author =. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems , volume =

  35. [43]

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , volume=

    Rewarding endowments lead to a win-win in the evolution of public cooperation and the accumulation of common resources , author=. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  36. [44]

    Artificial Life Conference Proceedings , pages=

    Composition of Games as a Model for the Evolution of Social Institutions , author=. Artificial Life Conference Proceedings , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  37. [45]

    Santos and Tom Lenaerts , Journal =

    The Anh Han and Luis Moniz Pereira and Francisco C. Santos and Tom Lenaerts , Journal =

  38. [46]

    2019 , publisher=

    Prosocial: Using evolutionary science to build productive, equitable, and collaborative groups , author=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  39. [47]

    Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation , volume=

    Exploring optimal institutional incentives for public cooperation , author=. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  40. [48]

    , booktitle =

    Cimpeanu, Theodor and Han, The Anh and Santos, Francisco C. , booktitle =

  41. [49]

    Reward and punishment in climate change dilemmas , Volume =

    G. Reward and punishment in climate change dilemmas , Volume =. Sci. Rep. , Number =

  42. [50]

    Cognitive Systems Research , volume=

    Modelling enduring institutions: The complementarity of evolutionary and agent-based approaches , author=. Cognitive Systems Research , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  43. [51]

    IEEE Technology and Society Magazine , volume=

    Trusting intelligent machines: Deepening trust within socio-technical systems , author=. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  44. [52]

    Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , volume=

    Evolutionary dynamics in the public goods games with switching between punishment and exclusion , author=. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  45. [53]

    Scientific reports , volume=

    Cost-effective external interference for promoting the evolution of cooperation , author=. Scientific reports , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  46. [54]

    Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages=

    Fostering cooperation in structured populations through local and global interference strategies , author=. Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages=

  47. [55]

    Second-Order Free-Riding on Antisocial Punishment Restores the Effectiveness of Prosocial Punishment , author =. Phys. Rev. X , volume =. 2017 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.7.041027 , url =

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    Physics Reports , pages =

    Perc, Matja. Physics Reports , pages =

  49. [57]

    Scientific reports , volume=

    Delegation to artificial agents fosters prosocial behaviors in the collective risk dilemma , author=. Scientific reports , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  50. [58]

    PLoS one , volume=

    Mediating artificial intelligence developments through negative and positive incentives , author=. PLoS one , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  51. [59]

    Journal of the Royal Society Interface , volume=

    Emergence of cooperation in the one-shot Prisoner’s dilemma through Discriminatory and Samaritan AIs , author=. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  52. [60]

    AI Magazine , volume=

    Prosocial dynamics in multiagent systems , author=. AI Magazine , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  53. [61]

    Iscience , volume=

    Facilitating cooperation in human-agent hybrid populations through autonomous agents , author=. Iscience , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  54. [62]

    Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

    Engineering pro-sociality with autonomous agents , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

  55. [63]

    2006 , publisher=

    Evolutionary dynamics: exploring the equations of life , author=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  56. [64]

    Journal of The Royal Society Interface , volume =

    Shen, Chen and He, Zhixue and Shi, Lei and Wang, Zhen and Tanimoto, Jun , title =. Journal of The Royal Society Interface , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  57. [65]

    Journal of the Royal Society Interface , volume=

    Language-based game theory in the age of artificial intelligence , author=. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  58. [66]

    ALIFE 2024: Proceedings of the 2024 Artificial Life Conference , year=

    The Digital Gallows: Threat of Institutional Punishment Fosters the Emergence of Cooperation , author=. ALIFE 2024: Proceedings of the 2024 Artificial Life Conference , year=

    2024

  59. [67]

    Behavioral Science , volume=

    A reparameterization of the prisoner's dilemma game , author=. Behavioral Science , volume=. 1973 , publisher=

    1973

  60. [68]

    Journal of theoretical biology , volume=

    The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts , author=. Journal of theoretical biology , volume=. 1974 , publisher=

    1974

  61. [69]

    Nature Communications , volume=

    AI for social good: unlocking the opportunity for positive impact , author=. Nature Communications , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  62. [70]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06898 , year=

    Words are not Wind--How Joint Commitment and Reputation Solve Social Dilemmas, without Repeated Interactions or Enforcement by Third Parties , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06898 , year=

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Individual costs and societal benefits of interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  64. [72]

    Artificial Life , volume=

    Corpus-based intention recognition in cooperation dilemmas , author=. Artificial Life , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  65. [73]

    Iscience , volume=

    Evolution of a theory of mind , author=. Iscience , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  66. [74]

    Games , volume=

    A review of theoretical studies on indirect reciprocity , author=. Games , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  67. [75]

    Evolutionary ecology , volume=

    Nepotism vs Tit-For-Tat, or, why should you be nice to your rotten brother? , author=. Evolutionary ecology , volume=. 1991 , publisher=

    1991

  68. [76]

    Cognitive Systems Research , volume=

    When to (or not to) trust intelligent machines: Insights from an evolutionary game theory analysis of trust in repeated games , author=. Cognitive Systems Research , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  69. [77]

    Artificial Life , volume=

    Pleasing Enhances Indirect Reciprocity-Based Cooperation Under Private Assessment , author=. Artificial Life , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  70. [78]

    2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) , pages=

    Making an example: signalling threat in the evolution of cooperation , author=. 2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  71. [79]

    New Journal of Physics , volume=

    Probabilistic sharing solves the problem of costly punishment , author=. New Journal of Physics , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  72. [80]

    Physics Letters A , volume=

    Evolution of cooperation driven by sampling punishment , author=. Physics Letters A , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  73. [81]

    Nesse, R. M. , Date-Modified =. Evolution and the capacity for commitment , Year =

  74. [82]

    Nature , volume=

    Social norm complexity and past reputations in the evolution of cooperation , author=. Nature , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  75. [83]

    Nature communications , volume=

    Adherence to public institutions that foster cooperation , author=. Nature communications , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  76. [84]

    Europhysics Letters , volume=

    Incentive strategies for the evolution of cooperation: Analysis and optimization , author=. Europhysics Letters , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  77. [85]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , volume=

    How institutions shaped the last major evolutionary transition to large-scale human societies , author=. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  78. [86]

    Scientific reports , volume=

    Generosity motivated by acceptance-evolutionary analysis of an anticipation game , author=. Scientific reports , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  79. [87]

    Physical Review E , volume=

    Evolutionary prisoner’s dilemma game on a square lattice , author=. Physical Review E , volume=. 1998 , publisher=

    1998

  80. [88]

    Journal of the royal society interface , volume=

    First carrot, then stick: how the adaptive hybridization of incentives promotes cooperation , author=. Journal of the royal society interface , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  81. [89]

    Physical review letters , volume=

    Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation , author=. Physical review letters , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  82. [90]

    Scientific reports , volume=

    The role of institutional incentives and the exemplar in promoting cooperation , author=. Scientific reports , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  83. [91]

    PLoS One , volume=

    Recidivism and rehabilitation of criminal offenders: A carrot and stick evolutionary game , author=. PLoS One , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  84. [92]

    2014 , publisher=

    Reward and punishment in social dilemmas , author=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  85. [93]

    Artificial life , volume=

    Institutions and cooperation in an ecology of games , author=. Artificial life , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  86. [94]

    Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience , pages =

    Chen, Xiaojie and Perc, Matja. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience , pages =

  87. [95]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Evolution of fairness in the one-shot anonymous Ultimatum Game , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  88. [96]

    Intention Recognition, Commitment and Their Roles in the Evolution of Cooperation: From Artificial Intelligence Techniques to Evolutionary Game Theory Models , pages=

    The emergence of commitments and cooperation , author=. Intention Recognition, Commitment and Their Roles in the Evolution of Cooperation: From Artificial Intelligence Techniques to Evolutionary Game Theory Models , pages=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  89. [97]

    Artificial Intelligence Review , volume=

    The design of intelligent socio-technical systems , author=. Artificial Intelligence Review , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  90. [98]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Evolution of fairness in the one-shot anonymous ultimatum game , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  91. [99]

    Trends in cognitive sciences , volume=

    Human cooperation , author=. Trends in cognitive sciences , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  92. [100]

    Correlation of Positive and Negative Reciprocity Fails to Confer an Evolutionary Advantage: Phase Transitions to Elementary Strategies , author =. Phys. Rev. X , volume =. 2013 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.3.041021 , url =

    2013 doi

  93. [101]

    Physical review letters , volume=

    Emergence of fairness in repeated group interactions , author=. Physical review letters , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  94. [102]

    The take-it-or-leave-it option allows small penalties to overcome social dilemmas , Volume =

    Sasaki, Tatsuya and Br. The take-it-or-leave-it option allows small penalties to overcome social dilemmas , Volume =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , Number =

  95. [103]

    , author=

    Reward, punishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. , author=. Psychological bulletin , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  96. [104]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =

    Risk of collective failure provides an escape from the tragedy of the commons , author =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =

  97. [105]

    2011 , publisher=

    Supercooperators , author=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  98. [106]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , volume=

    Incentives and opportunism: from the carrot to the stick , author=. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  99. [107]

    The Calculus of Selfishness , year=

    The calculus of selfishness , author=. The Calculus of Selfishness , year=

  100. [108]

    Social learning promotes institutions for governing the commons , Volume =

    Sigmund, Karl and De Silva, Hannelore and Traulsen, Arne and Hauert, Christoph , Journal =. Social learning promotes institutions for governing the commons , Volume =

  101. [109]

    Science , volume=

    Positive interactions promote public cooperation , author=. Science , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  102. [110]

    2005 , publisher=

    Understanding institutional diversity , author=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  103. [111]

    Science , volume =

    Via Freedom to Coercion: The Emergence of Costly Punishment , author =. Science , volume =

  104. [112]

    The Efficient Interaction of Indirect Reciprocity and Costly Punishment , volume =

    Rockenbach, Bettina and Milinski, Manfred , year =. The Efficient Interaction of Indirect Reciprocity and Costly Punishment , volume =. Nature , doi =

  105. [113]

    The Competitive Advantage of Sanctioning Institutions , volume =

    Gürerk, Özgür and Irlenbusch, Bernd and Rockenbach, Bettina , year =. The Competitive Advantage of Sanctioning Institutions , volume =. Science (New York, N.Y.) , doi =

  106. [114]

    2006 , publisher =

    Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life , author =. 2006 , publisher =

    2006

  107. [115]

    Science , volume =

    Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation , author =. Science , volume =. 2006 , doi =

    2006

  108. [116]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =

    Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection , author =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =

  109. [117]

    Science , volume =

    Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation , author =. Science , volume =

  110. [118]

    2004 , publisher=

    Innovation and incentives , author=. 2004 , publisher=

    2004

  111. [119]

    Nature , volume=

    Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations , author=. Nature , volume=. 2004 , publisher=

    2004

  112. [120]

    , journal =

    Sigmund, Karl and Hauert, Christoph and Nowak, Martin A. , journal =

  113. [121]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Evolutionary cycles of cooperation and defection , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  114. [122]

    Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pages=

    The Nash social welfare function , author=. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pages=. 1979 , publisher=

    1979

  115. [123]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  116. [124]

    Journal of theoretical biology , volume=

    Anti-social punishment can prevent the co-evolution of punishment and cooperation , author=. Journal of theoretical biology , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  117. [125]

    Science , volume=

    Antisocial punishment across societies , author=. Science , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  118. [126]

    Science , volume=

    Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game , author=. Science , volume=. 2000 , publisher=

    2000

  119. [127]

    Proceedings of the thirtieth aaai conference on artificial intelligence , pages=

    Emergence of social punishment and cooperation through prior commitments , author=. Proceedings of the thirtieth aaai conference on artificial intelligence , pages=

  120. [128]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    The evolution of altruistic punishment , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2003 , publisher=

    2003

  121. [129]

    Nature , volume=

    Altruistic punishment in humans , author=. Nature , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  122. [130]

    1997 , publisher =

    Y Huang and W F McColl , title =. 1997 , publisher =. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/30/22/026 , url =

    1997 doi

  123. [131]

    The Sociological Review , volume =

    Perspectives on the Micro-Macro Distinction , author =. The Sociological Review , volume =

  124. [132]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.25568 , year=

    Network Reciprocity Shapes Evolutionary Cybersecurity Dynamics , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.25568 , year=

    arXiv

  125. [133]

    Nature , volume=

    Evolution of indirect reciprocity , author=. Nature , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  126. [134]

    II , author=

    The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II , author=. Journal of theoretical biology , volume=. 1964 , publisher=

    1964

  127. [135]

    1990 , publisher=

    Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action , author=. 1990 , publisher=

    1990

  128. [136]

    The economic journal , volume=

    Social capital and community governance , author=. The economic journal , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  129. [137]

    Scientific reports , volume=

    Impact of social punishment on cooperative behavior in complex networks , author=. Scientific reports , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  130. [138]

    EPL (Europhysics Letters) , volume=

    Reward and cooperation in the spatial public goods game , author=. EPL (Europhysics Letters) , volume=

  131. [139]

    Applied Mathematics and Computation , volume=

    Decentralized incentives for general well-being in networked public goods game , author=. Applied Mathematics and Computation , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  132. [140]

    , author=

    Cost optimisation of hybrid institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in finite populations: MH Duong et al. , author=. Journal of Mathematical Biology , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  133. [141]

    , author=

    Cost Optimisation of Individual-Based Institutional Reward Incentives for Promoting Cooperation in Finite Populations: MH Duong et al. , author=. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  134. [142]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.18965 , year=

    Convergence of Replicator Dynamics in the Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma with Restarts , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.18965 , year=

    arXiv

  135. [143]

    Scientific reports , volume=

    Voluntary rewards mediate the evolution of pool punishment for maintaining public goods in large populations , author=. Scientific reports , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  136. [144]

    Physics of life reviews , year=

    Cooperation versus social welfare , author=. Physics of life reviews , year=

  137. [145]

    1998 , publisher=

    Evolutionary games and population dynamics , author=. 1998 , publisher=

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.